Thursday, August 14, 2014

On Kids, Violence, and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

A rocket explodes. 

The force of the explosion causes air molecules to vibrate against each other.  These vibrations spread in a wave, each air molecule rubbing up against the next, communicating the atmospheric inheritance of the bomb.  The vibrating wave eventually arrive at a young boys ear, where it bounced around the ear canal, finally striking the tympanic membrane at its end.  Shortly after the membrane begins to vibrate, bones behind it follow suit, sending the event deeper into the young boy’s body.  Eventually the vibrations make it to a fluid filled canal in the inner ear.  As it spreads down this narrow corridor it comes into contact with microscopic hair follicles which beat back and forth, struggling against the explosive legacy.  In response to the struggle, ion channels in the base of the follicles open, turning the sound vibrations into electrical impulses.  These signals shoot down an attached nerve, aimed directly at the brain.


If you’ve followed the news recently, you know that Israel and Hamas are engaged in a vicious conflict over control of Gaza. Hamas, citing grievances over a stern Israeli blockade of the region, has fired nearly 3500 rockets at Israeli cities since the conflict began in mid-July.  Israel has responded by conducting thousands of airstrikes on targets in Gaza and sending in ground troops to destroy Hamas’ network of underground tunnels.  This is not a new story line as similar fighting has occurred between the two groups time and again ad nauseam. This conflict has been going on in its modern form for more than 7 decades.  With such a long history of incredible violence, how do we begin to measure the impact of this conflict?
The traditional way is to tell the story in numbers.  In the press, this is primarily described by numbers of people killed and displaced. The best estimates (and good, truthful estimates are really hard to come by) I have read say around 2000 Palestinians have been killed and 425,000 displaced by the fighting.  More than 12,000 Gazan homes have been destroyed and economic costs have been devastating.  Israel has suffered 3 civilian and 64 military deaths (to be fair, while the numbers are smaller, they also suffer the daily consequences of living under fire from rockets for the last several years).  Of particular note is the number of kids affected by the campaign.  UNICEF estimates 400 Palestinian kids have been killed (20% of total Palestinian casualties) and 375,00 have been displaced (79% of refugees) (Source here and here). Commentators, peace activists, and war hawks alike throw these numbers around as ways to assess the conflict’s impact on the people, community, nation, local economy, or what have you. 
My contention is that, while describing a horrible situation, these numbers tell a limited story.   Death and displacement describe what is happening now, but do little to communicate the human experience of the war or the future consequences of these events.  We could further discuss economic cost, poll numbers, conflict length, and even DALYs (an awesome, but limited measure of disease burden used by public health officials), but we would still miss a certain human experience element that such analyses inevitably leave out.  I would like to propose a novel mechanism for measuring conflict impact that both communicates the deleterious experience as well as predicts the negative consequences of such conflicts. And of course with me, the answer is a pediatric answer. 
There is an emerging concept in the world of Pediatrics about the role that stress plays in childhood development.  A landmark study from 1998 looked at more than 17,000 kids and how they responded to adverse childhood experiences (ACE).  ACEs are defined as experiences such as abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction.  Researches classified the number of ACEs a kid had and looked at associations with health behaviors and disease outcomes.  The results were stunning.  The number of ACEs a kid experienced correlated with adverse health outcomes in a dose-dependent manner.  In other words, the more ACEs, the unhealthier the individual was as an adult.  This association was true for health behaviors such as increased drug abuse, alcohol abuse, smoking, risky sex, teen pregnancy, and partner violence.  Moreover the association held true for health outcomes of some of the most common causes of morbidity and mortality such as heart disease, liver disease, lung disease, depression, STDs, fetal death, and suicide (Source).  This study provided clear insight about the effects our experiences have on our health. 
From this study, a science of pediatric stress has blossomed.  The foundation of this science is the fact that the body has robust mechanisms to respond to and cope with stress. The stress caused by ACEs overwhelms the body’s ability to cope and so has been termed “toxic stress” (TS). Research has demonstrated numerous biological changes associated with TS.  Cortisol is a hormone released from your adrenal glands to help your body cope with stress by raising blood pressure and blood glucose levels and mediating activation of the “fight-or-flight” response. Studies have shown that kids who experience TS have prolonged elevation of cortisol levels.  Long-term exposure can cause many adverse consequences such as immune system dysfunction, muscle tissue breakdown, electrolyte imbalances, and neurological damage.  Concerning this last effect, fancy brain imaging studies have shown that prolonged cortisol exposure causes actual changes in the architecture of the brain areas associated with fear and emotion regulation (amygdala), memory and emotion integration (hippocampus), and decision-making and action control (prefrontal cortex).  While this is an overview of stress from 10,000 feet, doctors generally cite these mechanisms as the biological mediators of the adverse health outcomes associated with ACEs and TS  (If you have extra nerd time, here's an awesome PDF overview, here's a more technical paper from the AAP).


In split seconds the explosive message reaches the young boy's brainstem. From its protected vantage point at the base of the skull it disperses the message up and throughout the cerebrum, the command center.  The auditory cortex hears the message and sends it to the hippocampus to try to remember where such reverberations had been heard before. The hippocampus remembers the destructive effects of such a sound and passes it along to the amygdala to decide how it should feel.  The amygdala instantly knows the only feeling to be felt is fear.  As it passes the message down the line the amygdala sounds the alarm, letting the reserves know it was time to act.  From a distance, sitting on the kidneys, the adrenal gland hears the alarm.  Cortisol and adrenaline come pouring out of the gland into the bloodstream, preparing the body to act.  At the same time, the prefrontal cortex activates, sending sparks of cognition to the muscles, preparing them to go. The boy’s eyes dilate, sweat glistens his brow, his heart starts pounding, his muscles tense.  Meanwhile the message reaches the black box of his consciousness.  As his attention shifts to the explosive sound, he can only think one thing: danger.


The fascinating thing to me is how this should expand our narration of health and disease.  Normally, when there is something wrong with our bodies we (both as lay people and as doctors) explain it as a present tense state of being – “I have a cold”, “You are a smoker”.  This, of course, is the most natural way to talk about the state of our bodies, but it has the effect of anchoring our focus to the present without giving much thought to the proximate causes of such states.  When we do explain causes, we tend not to go back too many degrees from the present: “why do I have a cold?”, “Because you took care of the snotty kid down the street yesterday.”  It is not within our mental purview to explain how the kid got the cold from sticking a toy in his mouth at the mall, which became infected when a janitor touched it after blowing his nose in the same snot rag all day, who in turn had been infected by…. and so forth.  The beauty of TS theory is that we now have a strong anchor point in the past and a plausible biological mechanism over time to expand the depth of our disease narration in the present.
Now let’s finally return to our discussion about measuring conflict.  I said above that I want a measurement that communicates the experience and the consequence of conflict.  Stress is the perfect way to communicate both of these.  A body’s response to subjective experience over time has measurable consequences, both in terms of biological changes and life outcomes.  Such a discussion would have a more emotional impact than statistics.  We can all relate to the experience of stress and thus understand to some degree what it is like that these other humans are undergoing this experience.  It would also be more longitudinal than just quoting death totals and economic costs, as we could extrapolate from the present time not only those effects, but also the myriad health, emotional, and psychological consequences as well.  With time and further research, perhaps we could even delineate how such acute stressors cause changes in culture, sociology, government, religion, etc.  Humans are the basic functional unit of all of these structures, so a dynamic view of how humans change over time in response to stress would do much to inform initiatives that prevent, mitigate, and repair the damage of such horrible situations. 
What would such a measurement look like? I propose the base value would be “Toxic Stress Units” (TSUs).  We could take random samples from the population of pre- and post-conflict cortisol levels, fight-or-flight response reactivity, and neuronal metabolism of the specific brain areas mentioned above.  We could index these values into a basic unit and then measure the increase of TSUs caused by the conflict.  Longitudinal studies could look at how adverse health (or economic, political, etc) outcomes correlate with TSU levels over time.  Once we develop a good understanding of TSUs, public health experts could use them to craft policies on how to approach post-conflict development, peace activists could use them to decry the evil-yet-specific, horrendous-yet-measurable effects of war on children, and policy developers could use them to account for the comprehensive burden that conflicts will have on the major political and economic structures of a nation. 
            And how long would all this take? Probably decades to forever.  I literally started thinking about this last week and as far as I know, there are no such discussions in the literature.  So it has not progressed beyond the stage of a fanciful thought in my mind (well I guess now it’s a speculative blog post).  But I do think it is interesting and worth chewing on.
            There is a last, larger point I will make from all this.   While toxic stress units are not yet a real thing, the horrible pain we inflict on each other certainly is.  In the Jewish Old Testament there is a word for peace that is transliterated as “shalom” (and, though I’m less familiar, Muslim texts have a similar word, “Salam”).  This word means something beyond a mere absence of hostility.  Shalom has been defined as “a comprehensive well being” or “universal flourishing, wholeness, and delight—a rich state of affairs in which natural needs are satisfied and natural gifts fruitfully employed, a state of affairs that inspires joyful wonder as its Creator and Savior opens doors and welcomes the creatures in whom He delights. Shalom, in other words, is the way things ought to be.”   I believe through this discussion about adverse childhood experiences, stress, and health outcomes, we’ve skimmed the surface of this idea.  There is a way things out to be, there is a right relationship between ourselves, our world, our Creator, and our fellow man.  Disruption of these relationships feed back on each other to cause disease, and wars, and death, and destruction, and elevated TSUs.  The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been ongoing for more than 7 decades.  There is no stopping it if we cannot change how this conflict is seen and what this conflict is about.  By talking in terms of TSUs, we might shift the focus from winning a battle to promoting shalom.  By focusing on shalom, then the answer is not a geo-political reconfiguration, but rather a human and relational restoration.


Over the years, his body becomes veteran to the sound of explosions.  His ears are attuned to its nuances, his hippocampus remembers well what it foretells, his prefrontal cortex is practiced in its response.  Cortisol is his constant companion and epinephrine an old friend.  And then there’s the amygdala.  Long ago it replaced fear as part of its response with something much stronger.  The amygdala learned to numb the pain, to blunt its response, by washing him in that most potent of anesthetics: hate.  It is hate that now bends the young man’s knee.  Hate that feels the weight of the weapon on his shoulder.  Hate that lowers his head to take aim.  Hate that flexes his finger and hate that pulls the trigger.  

And the rocket explodes.   

Saturday, August 2, 2014

On Fatherhood and Ebola

My daughter was born amidst the worst Ebola outbreak inhuman history.  Throughout Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Nigeria the Ebola virus is wreaking havoc.  It spreads through contact with bodily fluids.  It can cause you to bleed out of every hole in your body.  It has a mortality rate of 60-90%.  It has killed an estimated 700 people, including 60 healthcare workers.  There is no cure. It recently made it to Lagos, Nigeria - the largest city in Africa and a major hub for international travel.  Public health infrastructure in the region is shoddy at best and health officials are having trouble containing spread of the infection.  It’s already an epidemic and it’s looking to get a lot worse.  This was the world my daughter, Audrey, was born into.

However, be it through Providence or just luck, she was born in Texas to two parents who have never even been to the region.  Insulated by geography and a strong public health infrastructure in the United States, I do not have to worry about her contracting the virus.  And yet, I sort of do. 

So I am a 1st year pediatric resident at a large children’s hospital in Texas.  Along with my MD, I have a master’s degree in public health and so have a reasonable understanding of epidemiology and infectious disease response systems.  Intellectually, I know the minuscule  risk of her ever contracting the disease and yet emotionally, I still feel unease.

To understand my feeling of unease, I first want to understand all these new parental feelings I’m experiencing. 

We’ll start here: I am really, really, really fond of my baby.  She wiggles around, farts, eats, and makes weird grunting noises when she feeds.  And it’s incredible.  I love her.  The interesting thing to me is that, prior to her existence, I did not feel this feeling (I felt abstract love for a future, possible child, but not specific love for this child).  So my love for her and this feeling I have came into existence with her existence.  Moreover, my love for her did not take from feeling of love toward anybody else in my life.  So the new measure of love was added to the love I already feel for everyone else in my life.  Therefore, I can conclude my love for my daughter is both new to my socio-emotional identity AND added to my previous amount of felt love.  Or we can say I feel both a new type of love and more love than I have felt before in my life. 

Furthermore, I love her and feel a strong aversion for her discomfort.  We’ll call this feeling risk (a negative feeling from understanding there is potential for her to experience discomfort).  We can treat this feeling the same way we treated love above.  So this feeling of risk is both new to me AND makes me feel more risk than I have ever felt before. 

This is the problem: with love comes risk. I realized this first when I got married.  When it was just me by myself, although I didn’t want harm to come to me, I did not feel as much of this feeling of risk.  For example if I was an action hero, the super villain would have no one he could threaten to throw in a pool of badger-sharks (barks) if I did not surrender (this is just for the sake of example, of course I would maybe surrender for you mom…).  When I married Rachel (wife), all the sudden I had this really valuable externality, and I started feeling unease over situations I had not previously.  Here's a more real life example: I’ve desired to be a missionary doctor for a long time, but getting married has made me rethink the kind of contexts we might look to live in.  Because of my love for my wife, this new feeling of risk was added to my life. 

Now I have a little, wiggly girl that I am responsible for.  Now the feeling of risk is huge! Greater in magnitude and in power than I’ve ever felt in my whole life. 

Which brings me back to Ebola.  Yes, we are many degrees of separation from the virus.  Yes, the chances of her catching it are tiny.  And yet I love her, and therefore I want what’s best for her.  Moreover, I love her, and therefore I do not want what’s bad for her.  She was born into a world where Ebola runs rampant, and wars are multiplying.  I don’t want her to experience these things.  I don’t even want her to face the CHANCE of experiencing these things.  And yet I love her and cannot imagine her not being here.  In this present world.  With me. I wouldn’t have it any other way. 

Such is the odd intellectual-emotional tension, the strange cognitive dissonance, of love.  My feeling love means my feeling risk.  It’s the steep ridge of an emotional mountain all parents walk.  I suppose I am just beginning to step out onto it.  

_________________________________________________________________________________

Welcome to the blog.  As I said, I’m a 1st year resident Pediatrician. More importantly, I'm husband to an incredible wife and dad to an incredible daughter.  Here I hope to periodically discuss both the science and experience of being a parent.   Along the way I hope to include my non-expert interests in theology, politics, philosophy, current events, 90s cartoons, and dude stuff.  I like to think of this as a scientifically-based mommy blog for bros – meaning there will be no Pinterest references ever.